Jacob
Sahlhoff claims that the defendants, collectively called
“Gurley-Leep” in this opinion, interfered with
his right to unpaid medical leave and retaliated against him
for asserting that right under the Family Medical Leave Act,
29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq. The court
dismissed Mr. Sahlhoff's first amended complaint for
failure to state a claim. He then filed a second amended
complaint. Gurley-Leep moved to dismiss again, arguing that
the changes to Mr. Sahlhoff's complaint don't rectify
the problems of the previous one. The court disagrees.

I.
Background

Mr.
Sahlhoff worked for seven years as a car salesman at
Gurley-Leep.[1] He alleges that, starting in March of
2012, he started to experience sharp pain in and around his
eye, the sensation of needles probing and scratching his eye,
and blurred vision. The pain was so intense he often had to
rest his head on his desk at work, and otherwise struggled
through it to do his job. While Mr. Sahlhoff used to work at
least fifty hours per week, he had to tell his supervisors
that he couldn't do the overtime. Mr. Sahlhoff alleges
that Gurley-Leep wasn't at all understanding. When he
explained his symptoms to managers, or when they saw him in
pain, they mocked or belittled him, telling him to toughen up
or that he knows he can't be missing work. They did this
even when he needed to leave work for medical examinations,
and so Mr. Sahlhoff felt pressured to delay examinations and
to return to work immediately after them. Mr. Sahlhoff went
to at least three doctors between May and July. On July 6
Gurley-Leep fired him, saying that he “was not
committed to the job.” After termination, Mr. Sahlhoff
went to numerous doctors and was ultimately diagnosed with a
tumor that required removal of his right eye.

Some of
the changes to Mr. Sahlhoff's complaint are significant.
Mr. Sahlhoff explains that he complained about his symptoms
to the general manager and sales manager. He describes with
greater specificity that he sought treatment at a medical
center specializing in eye problems and that he was referred
to an orbital specialist for testing and treatment. He
explains that each of the three or more examinations he went
to between May and July of 2012 required him to miss work for
about two and a half hours. He explains that the cancerous
lump growing near his eye was visible to others while he was
still employed at Gurley-Leep. He also describes the numerous
medical appointments he made after being fired that resulted
in his diagnosis and loss of his right eye.

II.
Standard of Review

Gurley-Leep
moves to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to
state a claim. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). To state a claim, a
complaint need only contain a short and plain statement
showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. See
EEOC v. Concentra Health Servs., Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776
(7th Cir. 2007). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the
court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual
allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable
inferences in favor of the non-moving party. See Hecker
v. Deere & Co., 556 F.3d 575, 580 (7th Cir. 2009). A
complaint survives a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) if
it contains sufficient factual allegations to “state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Adams v. City of
Indianapolis, 742 F.3d 720, 728 (7th Cir. 2014).

III.
Discussion

Mr.
Sahlhoff alleges that Gurley-Leep interfered with his FMLA
rights when it objected to him taking time for medical
services and fired him when he was likely to require leave,
and that it fired him in retaliation for asserting his
rights.

A. FMLA
Interference Claim

To
prevail on a claim of interference with his FMLA rights, Mr.
Sahlhoff must show that (a) he was eligible for FMLA
protections, (b) his employer was covered by the FMLA, (c) he
was entitled to leave under the FMLA, (d) he provided
sufficient notice of his intent to take FMLA leave, and (e)
his employer denied him FMLA benefits to which he was
entitled. Scruggs v. Carrier Corp., 688 F.3d 821,
825 (7th Cir. 2012). Elements (c) and (d) are at issue here.

Regulations
elaborate that “continuing treatment by a health care
provider” requires at least one of numerous listed
conditions. 29 U.S.C. § 825.115. The first of these is
“a period of incapacity of more than three consecutive,
full calendar days, and any subsequent treatment or period of
incapacity relating to the same condition.” 29 C.F.R.
§ 825.115(a). Mr. Sahlhoff doesn't allege that he
was ever incapacitated for more than three consecutive, full
calendar days, so this route is closed.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The
next possible route for &ldquo;continuing treatment&rdquo; is
&ldquo;chronic conditions.&rdquo; &sect; 825.115(c). A
chronic serious health condition requires, first, visiting a
health care provider for treatment at least twice a year.
&sect; 825.115(c)(1). &ldquo;Treatment&rdquo; &ldquo;includes
. . . examinations to determine if a serious health condition
exists and evaluations of the condition.&rdquo; &sect;
825.113(c). Even before Mr. Sahlhoff&#39;s termination and
diagnosis, he alleges at least three examinations for these
precise purposes. Second, the condition must
&ldquo;[c]ontinue[ ] over an extended period of time
(including recurring episodes of a single underlying
condition); and[, third, ] may cause episodic rather than a
continuing period of incapacity.&rdquo; &sect;
825.115(c)(2)-(3). Mr. Sahlhoff&#39;s symptoms, the sharp
pains in his eye and blurring vision, began in March and
continued for the roughly four months until he was
terminated. Approximately four months is enough for an
&ldquo;extended period.&rdquo; See Burnett v. LFW,
Inc., 472 F.3d 471, 478 (7th Cir. ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.